Strength of Islam vs Christianity.

The Corinthian

bluewolf wrote:

Hang on a minute - WHAT scientific fact? The only thing science has to do with this is to say "we cannot prove/disprove a god/gods". So what are you on about?

Actually quantum physics can 'disprove' God/gods, but that's actually another debate.

coffee_cake

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually quantum physics can 'disprove' God/gods, but that's actually another debate.

I must have missed that lecture
Unless you mean uncertainty, I suppose...

Sleepy

bluewolf wrote:

Hang on a minute - WHAT scientific fact? The only thing science has to do with this is to say "we cannot prove/disprove a god/gods". So what are you on about?

Ehm, lets see: that humans cannot raise from the dead, walk on water, turn water into wine, give birth without having first conceived, that bread cannot magically alter itself into human flesh, nor wine change to human blood, that re-incarnation is nonsense, etc. etc. etc.

Need I continue?

The Corinthian

bluewolf wrote:

I must have missed that lecture
Unless you mean uncertainty, I suppose...

Hence the apostrophises and my suggestion that it was another debate.

Actually, disregard my mentioning it, it’s just a can of worms that is best addressed elsewhere. Preferably on the Christianity forum where I’m banned.

coffee_cake

Sleepy wrote:

Ehm, lets see: that humans cannot raise from the dead, walk on water, turn water into wine, give birth without having first conceived, that bread cannot magically alter itself into human flesh, nor wine change to human blood, that re-incarnation is nonsense, etc. etc. etc.

Need I continue?

Yeah, since that tends to cover one religion with no mention of an actual god. At best that says the bible is inaccurate, not that the christian god doesn't exist.
And reincarnation has sfa to do with a god or gods.

So yeah, go on, please.

The Corinthian

Sleepy wrote:

Ehm, lets see: that humans cannot raise from the dead, walk on water, turn water into wine, give birth without having first conceived, that bread cannot magically alter itself into human flesh, nor wine change to human blood, that re-incarnation is nonsense, etc. etc. etc.

Need I continue?

Please don’t. The topic of the validity of New Testament miracles is pretty irrelevant to the question of the existence of God and/or gods. It may cast doubt upon one specific religion, or parts thereof, but that’s not the same thing.

Also this thread is sociological rather than religious in nature. It’s asking why one religion is presently proving so popular. Whether that religion - or all of them - is simply mumbo-jumbo is pretty irrelevant in the context of this discussion.

CrazySka

Ehm, lets see: that humans cannot raise from the dead, walk on water, turn water into wine, give birth without having first conceived, that bread cannot magically alter itself into human flesh, nor wine change to human blood, that re-incarnation is nonsense, etc. etc. etc.
Need I continue?

While i can see where youre coming from, the fact is that over time, things have occured that cant be explained, have a look over on the paranormal forum, i think theyre all deluding themselves but they seem pretty certain.
As you say, its a leap of faith, but i would also think most of it is not to be taken literally but is a type of symbolism, eg bread into flesh=the sharing of sacrifice.

Also this thread is sociological rather than religious in nature. It’s asking why one religion is presently proving so popular. Whether that religion - or all of them - is simply mumbo-jumbo is pretty irrelevant in the context of this discussion.

exactly lets not turn it into a does god exist thread.

Sleepy

So bluewolf, would you consider someone to still be Catholic if they reject all those things that the Bible and Catholic Church tell us are true?

The reason I added scientific facts to the list of things one must ignore to follow a religion is that to belong to a faith one must accept a number of things we know to be scientifically false as truths.

The belief in a deity, although impossible to disprove scientifically is logically unsound (if you'd like to dispute this, there's a great thread on it here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=218366&page=1&pp=20 where I'm sure Fysh has already probably covered any 'logical' argument you can come up with to defend such a belief and in far more eloquent a fashion than I can myself.)

Sleepy

The Corinthian wrote:

Please don’t. The topic of the validity of New Testament miracles is pretty irrelevant to the question of the existence of God and/or gods. It may cast doubt upon one specific religion, or parts thereof, but that’s not the same thing.

Also this thread is sociological rather than religious in nature. It’s asking why one religion is presently proving so popular. Whether that religion - or all of them - is simply mumbo-jumbo is pretty irrelevant in the context of this discussion.

My argument is that the countries where Islam is the dominant religion tend to be those with poorer education levels than those where Christianity is the dominant religion (outside of Africa). i.e. that the religion is stronger because it's followers are less educated.

coffee_cake

Sleepy wrote:

So bluewolf, would you consider someone to still be Catholic if they reject all those things that the Bible and Catholic Church tell us are true?

What has that got to do with anything?

The reason I added scientific facts to the list of things one must ignore to follow a religion is that to belong to a faith one must accept a number of things we know to be scientifically false as truths.

Actually you said believe in a god or gods, not follow a religion.
But if you want to add that on, you're welcome to try and disprove every religion with these scientific truths, making sure to point how each claim you disprove has any overall impact on the religion as a whole.
Meanwhile, I just want to hear about what scientific facts you've heard of that I haven't that disprove the existence of a god. Any arbitrary god will be fine.

The belief in a deity, although impossible to disprove scientifically is logically unsound (if you'd like to dispute this, there's a great thread on it here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=218366&page=1&pp=20 where I'm sure Fysh has already probably covered any 'logical' argument you can come up with to defend such a belief and in far more eloquent a fashion than I can myself.)

I wanted to know how science had any facts to disprove the existence of gods, I don't want to argue from the philosophical logical arguments.

Sangre

Last time I checked all those 'inaccuracies' were in relation to Jesus, the foundation of the christian faith. To claim the Bible is innaccurate with regards Jesus means you're not a Christian.

CrazySka

My argument is that the countries where Islam is the dominant religion tend to be those with poorer education levels than those where Christianity is the dominant religion (outside of Africa). i.e. that the religion is stronger because it's followers are less educated.

As far as i know iran has a good education system, they have 98 state universities, how many have we?
over 246,000 students graduated from higher level universities in 1997-98.
facts taken from here:
http://www.iranchamber.com/education/articles/educational_system.php
And yet Iran is a country where islam is probably stronger than anywhere else no?

archdukefranz

Sleepy wrote:

Ehm, lets see: that humans cannot raise from the dead, walk on water, turn water into wine, give birth without having first conceived, that bread cannot magically alter itself into human flesh, nor wine change to human blood, that re-incarnation is nonsense, etc. etc. etc.

Need I continue?

How could Science prove these to be impossible..?
Are you familar with the scientific method?
Like in what study was it that it was concluded that humans aren't capable of any or all these things. This is as valid as ID!

Richard Dawkins has set it up for you with the teapot God, you have to attack the existence of God before you can get into miracles because with the assumtion of the existence of God all these things above are not only possible but happen.

For those of you who are too lazy to go look at his program which is all available on youtube... he bassically there is as much reason for him to believe that there is a Yahweh and Allah as there is a teapot orbiting the earth.

The Corinthian

Sleepy wrote:

My argument is that the countries where Islam is the dominant religion tend to be those with poorer education levels than those where Christianity is the dominant religion (outside of Africa). i.e. that the religion is stronger because it's followers are less educated.

Fair enough. However, you’re simplifying matters greatly. You tend to find that religions gain currency as much because of their political activism as any educational level of the population. This is why some religions will often grow faster than others, even where the same educational level exists for both. This is almost certainly the case with Fundamentalist Islam.

Sleepy

A slight correction, a proper education, i.e. a non-secular one that doesn't teach religious beliefs as fact will greatly reduce belief in religions or adherance to them. Obviously this isn't the only thing that will affect religious adherance, as The Corinthian already pointed out secular governance will increase the numbers of people adhering to a religion, however, I'd wonder how much of this adherance is out of genuine faith rather than fear of persecution.

I suppose the way I phrased my posting to suggest that education is the only factor stems from my economics background, I tend to think of things being rather 'ceteris paribus'... Obviously in the real world there are many factors that influence religous adherance but I genuinely believe that the level of education of a population is one.

Sleepy

bluewolf wrote:

What has that got to do with anything?

Actually you said believe in a god or gods, not follow a religion.
But if you want to add that on, you're welcome to try and disprove every religion with these scientific truths, making sure to point how each claim you disprove has any overall impact on the religion as a whole.
Meanwhile, I just want to hear about what scientific facts you've heard of that I haven't that disprove the existence of a god. Any arbitrary god will be fine.

I wanted to know how science had any facts to disprove the existence of gods, I don't want to argue from the philosophical logical arguments.

I've already explained how my ineloquence lead to your misunderstanding of my postings, if you'd calm down and re-read my posts in full, you might understand that I'm referring to the fact that large sections of belief systems can be scientifically disproved. i.e. we can scientifically 'prove' (insofar as science can prove) that man cannot walk on water due to humans having a higher density than water.

I do not contend that science can disprove the existence of a deity. I would contend that such a belief is logically unsound and am very interested to hear why any rational human being would choose to ignore this logic and take the 'leap of faith' required to believe in one because the only motivations I can see to do this is fear (of one's own mortality, of one's inability to mentally cope without the comfort of religious beliefs). And believing something because of a fear of living without it, to me, is highly irrational.

coffee_cake

Sleepy wrote:

I've already explained how my ineloquence lead to your misunderstanding of my postings, if you'd calm down and re-read my posts in full, you might understand that I'm referring to the fact that large sections of belief systems can be scientifically disproved. i.e. we can scientifically 'prove' (insofar as science can prove) that man cannot walk on water due to humans having a higher density than water.

I am calm It seemed as though you were trying to deflect the question

I do not contend that science can disprove the existence of a deity.

In that case my quarrel with you is over
For now anyway :P I'm not inclined to argue about the logic right now, though I do suggest that there is another reason "because people simply think it's true". For some, it's as accepted as that the sky is blue and the grass is green. Not from fear, it just is.
And trying to "attack" certain minor parts of one book in one religion doesn't really cut it for all of them.

The Corinthian

Sleepy wrote:

The Corinthian already pointed out secular governance will increase the numbers of people adhering to a religion

I said no such thing.

Sleepy

The Corinthian wrote:

I said no such thing.

Apologies, this is what I thought you meant by "You tend to find that religions gain currency as much because of their political activism as any educational level of the population."

Sleepy

bluewolf wrote:

"because people simply think it's true"

You see, I just don't get this: there's no reason to think it's true. I can see reasons why people might *want* it to be true, but there's no logical reason to believe that it actually is.

[apologies for going off-topic]

Gurgle

Sleepy wrote:

My argument is that the countries where Islam is the dominant religion tend to be those with poorer education levels than those where Christianity is the dominant religion (outside of Africa). i.e. that the religion is stronger because it's followers are less educated.

Nope, not really.
South America is predominantly catholic.

Schuhart

Sleepy wrote:

Obviously in the real world there are many factors that influence religous adherance but I genuinely believe that the level of education of a population is one.

I don’t think education is the issue and, while I have been Touched by His Noodly Appendage into believing the Eight I’d Really Rather You Didn’ts , neither is the Flying Spagetti Monster.

The issue, for me at any rate, is why a perfectly well educated person decides to ignore things they can see are untrue and profess belief. And, to be honest, Islam is only on our minds in this context because some people professing to follow that faith crashed two planes into New York in front of the world’s media and others regarding themselves as co-religionists have also done some fairly brutal things that have also attracted media interest.

The ability of people to hold manifestly strange beliefs is certainly not restricted to them, and certainly not restricted to uneducated people. Some thing makes many of us want to believe that, in some form, Santa Claus has a list with our name on it, and something nice that he’s going to bring down the chimney next Christmas.

Tsukanda

Sleepy wrote:

I do not contend that science can disprove the existence of a deity. I would contend that such a belief is logically unsound and am very interested to hear why any rational human being would choose to ignore this logic and take the 'leap of faith' required to believe in one because the only motivations I can see to do this is fear (of one's own mortality, of one's inability to mentally cope without the comfort of religious beliefs). And believing something because of a fear of living without it, to me, is highly irrational.

Hm.

You contend that a belief in a deity (specific deity, or are you using Catholicism as an example? Of course, the latter...) is logically unsound on the bases that a relatively minor aspect of this religion is scientifically unsound.

Well, yes, I'd agree that miracles etc. as described in the bible etc. are very dismissable. As you've already said.

However, these miracles are not really important for the religion to survive/ for the religion's God to exist. These are merely ideas which nudge those who are already convinced by other methods that this religion is hunky dorey.

That is:

Jethro believes in God.

Jethro likes the idea of Catholicism.

Oh boy, Jethro loves that Catholicism!

Look Jethro, the Catholic God is so cool he can make wierd things happen, as outlined in this book.

Wow, God sure is great.


I hope what I've said so far is understandable for you. Basically, these miracles you've wielded to attack a religion, are irrelevant for the religion overall. Some followers of Religion X might even say, "By golly, I love this religion, but those miracles are quite absurd. Still, it's Religion X for me!"

-->miracles are bull****.

-->miracles are not essential for religion.

-->even if miracles are bull****, and proven so, followers of this religion are not convinced of this religion's flaws.


Sorry that I've repeated my point in three exciting ways. But I hope it's clear.

CrazySka

Originally Posted by Sleepy
Obviously in the real world there are many factors that influence religous adherance but I genuinely believe that the level of education of a population is one.

You only have to look at scientology to see that educated people (and i dont think scientology beliefs are ever talked about in schools, which kinda blows your secular education theory out of the water) can believe stranger things than mainstream religion.

Schuhart

You are right, and I think we also have to get away from the idea that Islam is from another planet.

About twenty years ago I was travelling through Malaysia. There was a story in the local papers about this fundamentalist Islamic girls’ school. Basically it was one of those places where the girls aren’t allowed to do any active sports, and lessons consist of Quran, Quran and more Quran.

There was an outbreak of good, old fashioned hysteria at the school. It was a virtual epidemic, and a lot of the girls ended up in the local hospital. Of course, there was nothing actually wrong about them. The doctors advised them to leave off the religion for a bit, and try playing some football or something. When the parents’ heard this, the story hit the media.

I had no problem following this story or picturing the people involved because it wasn’t so terribly unlike some of the dramas we were acting out in Ireland around the same time. I could picture the kind of craw thumper that would choose to send his daughter to a school where they’d wrap her in a sheet from head to toe. I could picture his reaction to ‘some smart alec Dublin 4 doctor sneering at the plain decent people.’

The things we’re talking about are not beyond our understanding – or experience.

InFront

Nobody can prove or disprove the existence of God/ Allah/ Yaweh/ the tooth fairy. It is an argument that has gone on for centuries, and our discussion here will not bring it to an end. In case I came across as a little flippant in referring to religion as 'irrational' I should say that what I mean by that is that given everyday logic, it doesnt appear to make sense. Just because it appears odd/ irrational doen not mean it cannot be true. I choose religion because I feel it to be true

Who carries the burden of proof? The believer or the non-believer? Neither. Because neither of us can prove our beliefs in the strictest sense of the verb. We can be convinced, and aim to export our convictions to others, but often that is not enough. Those of us who follow Islam, or whatever religion, do so not for reasons of birth or culture. I can only speak for myself when I say that if that were the case I would have given it up as a 16 year old.

I personally feel Allah to be with me at all times, as do all people of faith. If you think that sounds ridiculous, it is your own perspective and you are entitled to it. Science cannot prove a God exists, neither can it disprove or define the heartfelt conviction of enduring faith.

So it seems, that at the end of the world, believers: Muslim, Christian, Jew... and Scientologist, will continue to exist with the agnostic and the athiest. Until then we just have to get along and stop trying to challenege one another's intelligence or lack of it. I think that on that on the last day the one thing that unites us all will still be our complete ignorance about the world! To chose quite a biblical metaphor, This debate makes me think of human race as a boat full of people lost at sea. Half of them claiming to see land and the other half calling it foolish optimism.

On the original topic, yes followers of Islam tend to be far stricter in their worship than my experience of catholics. I dont know why that is or whether it will continue. As society moves, and mixed marriages become more popular (probably) I supsect that, like everything, it will change, but who knows.

growler

john_dub wrote:

You only have to look at scientology to see that educated people (and i dont think scientology beliefs are ever talked about in schools, which kinda blows your secular education theory out of the water) can believe stranger things than mainstream religion.

why do you think scientology is any more unlikely to be true than any other belief system ?


"To chose quite a biblical metaphor, This debate makes me think of human race as a boat full of people lost at sea. Half of them claiming to see land and the other half calling it foolish optimism"

that would seem to be a question of eyesight than faith, the land is either visible or it isn't.

InFront

The athiests arent looking hard enough:D

CrazySka

why do you think scientology is any more unlikely to be true than any other belief system ?

I actually did a bit of digging into the whole scientology thing a while ago and imo their beliefs make the bible look like an encyclopedia but besides that the fact is that scientology is a "religion" where you pay to reach each level, thats what makes me think so.
Some people (argumentative ones) will say that all religions make you pay inone way or another, but the fact is i can walk into a church and worship without paying.
We've been through the whole scientology question before on the spirituality forum, i dont really want to get into it again, was simply using it to illustrate the fact that educated people can take on beliefs that some would call ridiculous.

Sleepy

InFront wrote:

The athiests arent looking hard enough:D

or the theists are looking too hard